From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk Mon Jun 26 17:18:43 2000
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.10.1/8.9.3) id e5QGHae02428
for britdisc-outgoing; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 17:17:36 +0100 (BST)
Received: from snowdrop.csv.warwick.ac.uk (root@snowdrop [137.205.192.31])
by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.10.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id e5QGHZw02421
for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 17:17:35 +0100 (BST)
Received: from mailhost ([213.130.129.51])
by snowdrop.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.10.1/8.9.3) with SMTP id e5QGHXY03480
for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 17:17:33 +0100 (BST)
Received: from KEVIN (200.200.200.124)
by mailhost with MERCUR-SMTP/POP3/IMAP4-Server (v3.10.09 AS-0098310)
for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 17:28:33 +0100
Received: by KEVIN with Microsoft Mail
id <01BFDF92.0609FB80@KEVIN>; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 17:14:44 +0100
Message-ID: <01BFDF92.0609FB80@KEVIN>
From: Kevin Lowe <Kev@videosystem.co.uk>
To: "'Britdisc'" <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>
Subject: Tour 4 and Nationals
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 17:14:43 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk id e5QGHZw02422
Sender: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk
Precedence: bulk
I've got to agree with Roger on this one. We need some decisions made before Tour 4 so that teams like Catch, and equally, Headrush, BAF and Fusion know where they stand, and what they must do to qualify for Nationals.
As it stands now, assuming Catch finish somewhere in the top 4 at Tour 4 (btw, nice gag Rog), they will finish the Tour with points in the region of 650 - 690. Let's say they win Tour 4 (we're feeling generous after our Sudden Death victory in the semis), and get 690 points. If Headrush, BAF or Fusion finish 5th, they would end with 695, 691 or 690 points respectively. All fighting for that last top 8 slot (subject to Hammerage, Druids and Red not doing anything stupid).
It would be ludicrous to exclude Catch from Nationals, especially when so many of the other teams in the top 8 agreed with Catch's decision to withdraw from tour 2, and were close to doing the same. On the same note, if Catch were to slip in as 8th seeds and initial seedings at Nationals were based purely on tour points, then expect some interesting matches where teams may 'choose' to avoid the pool of death (1 3 6 8 pool).
Perhaps it is time to re-examine the way Nationals is run. Dropping down to a top pool of 8 was supposed to cut out the random element of seedings / format so you ended up with a more true (?) champion. OK, so if you're going to win Nationals, it really shouldn't matter where you are seeded, but as shown this weekend, both teams in the final had already been beaten in the pool matches.
The German system of the top 7 teams playing each other round-robin requires a three day tournament so is probably not applicable unless we have just top 6. The American double knockout where the losing semi finalists can then lose their top 4 position is extremely harsh. Anyone want to suggest any other systems?
How will the 8th / 9th / 10th placed teams feel if the rules are changed at this late stage? And how will people feel if some of the top teams didn't bother entering nationals in sympathy with the excluded Catch 22 and wishing not to be part of the farce?
Difficult decisions. Still, that's why we're paid huge salaries :-)
Kevin.
--
| Kev@cheerful.com Tel: 07974 417626
| And when they turn their arms against us,
| The arms that we supplied;
| If humanity could speak, well humanity would cry!
| You're not doing it my name.
|---
| If you have an Orange, One2One or Virgin mobile phone
| and never want to pay more than 3.5p per minute, or if
| you're with BT and want 33%+ savings on all calls, email
| or visit http://www.telco-gc.com/agent.asp?ID=40471872